chownah wrote:Since this is a "free for all" let me poke a bit and see if I can find a button somewhere......

Art is fun and stimulates the emotions but really folks get over it....it is just a point of view glorifying the insightful blah blah blah of the self. Don't get me wrong...I like art and feel that I can hold my own in expressing myself in many different artistic media....and non artistic media as well....but reallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly please try to get out of worshiping this mundane "achievement"........but only if you want to...........chownah

Still, wasn't there a sutta which warns that the sasana will decline when people start paying more attention to the works of artists than to the deep dhamma discourses?

So, I have to ask myself - even if I make a work of art with best possible intentions of not appealing to sensual craving but only expressing the truth and doing it effectively, will it ever be quite as good in expressing the truth as a dhamma discourse by the Buddha? Most probably not. So perhaps a better use of my time would be to learn dhamma discourses and somehow relay them to others (whether by transcription, translation or however) instead of making my own works of art. And further, I feel that if I'm using up other people's time with my own works of art (which are most certainly inferior to the Buddha's discourses) then I'm also inadvertently contributing to the decline of the sasana, as per the sutta.

One situation that might seem as an exception is when a creative process is used for meditation - e.g. playing a bamboo flute. However, I feel playing here simply aids one's insight and therefore has nothing to do with art really, nor is it intended to be for an audience. So, imo, it makes no difference here whether the outside activity as labeled as "playing a flute, riding a bike, or meditation while walking".

The only role for a work of art that I can honestly see is if people are skeptical to religion in whatever form. Such people will therefore never want to listen/read a dhamma discourse, so it is at this point where a work of art might be useful in conveying/expressing the truth in a non-dogmatic fashion. Outside of this though, I struggle to find any justification for spending my or other people's time on (even the highest) art.

(Unless of course the idea is to satisfy my/other people's sensual cravings, which can sometimes be the only way to temporarily escape the aversion to unpleasant feeling/dukkha - i.e. since we as puthujjanas don't really know how dispassion as the escape from dukkha really looks like in experience, the only remaining route for us is to seek temporary escape into the temporary clinging to temporary pleasant feeling supplied by a work of art for example, though of course that won't solve the problem of dukkha in the long run).

What I meant by proper utilization of the artistic process was a certain way of going from the enlightened/deathless/nibbanic state to making the decision to use ones volition to undertake the production of a work of "art" through to the completion of the production of this work of "art".

I ask myself:

What's the motivation?What's the need?Are the ends the artist seeks justified?According to who or what are the ends the artist seeks justified?

I'm still deliberating on the intricacies involved in all of this but it's clear a series of decisions/choices/assumptions have to be made and if one's mind is incongruent with truth/has defilements/not fully awakened this would influence the decisions/choices/assumptions that an artist/individual makes throughout this summoning of action i.e. engagement in the "artistic process".

If I identified with hedonism for example my truths/beliefs would be different to the truths of those inherent to practitoners of the dhamma and therefore the decisions/choices/assumptions I made if I chose to partake/indulge in the artistic process wouldn't resonate with the decisions/choices/assumptions a practitioner of the dhamma would make if they chose to partake/indulge in the artistic process an as a result the karma accrued by the hedonistic artist and the dhamma practicing artist would be different.

What I'm trying to point out is if the cessation of suffering caused by ignorance wasn't one's imperative the rules/factors that arise to govern/guide the outcome of the artistic process i.e. a piece of art and it's intended results/repercussions totally changes.

In regard to what you said about the Greeks, the depictions of the human body by the artists of that time display what the artists and presumably what the Zeitgeist of that periods/that cultures/that civilizations imperative was.

The Greeks thought form was the bees-knees, Punks think rebellion is the bees-knees - imperatives come and go but the changeless/deathless doesn't.

pt1,

If ending suffering and ignorance was your imperative putting the dhamma in or translating the dhamma into "your own words" so to speak while maintaining the integrity of how the messages in the dhamma were intended to be comprehended would be the way to go I'm reckoning - sort of like the same messages but different modes of communication - What do you think?

In saying this the intended recipient of the message/teaching your communicating would have to be watching for the message and not be simply gratifying/treating their senses with/to appealing colours/vibrations/textures/etc. - the trickiness of getting them to look for a message among the colors/vibrations/textures/etc is probably why The Buddha said what you mentioned about the decline of sasana if people payed more attention to artists then the dhamma.

I've got some other stuff I'd like to bring up but I'll leave it for later.

chownah wrote:Since this is a "free for all" let me poke a bit and see if I can find a button somewhere......

Art is fun and stimulates the emotions but really folks get over it....it is just a point of view glorifying the insightful blah blah blah of the self. Don't get me wrong...I like art and feel that I can hold my own in expressing myself in many different artistic media....and non artistic media as well....but reallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly please try to get out of worshiping this mundane "achievement"........but only if you want to...........chownah

Feel better?

-M

I'm fine, thank you......do you feel better?.....got any ideas about this thread you would like to share?chownah

I'm wondering what is the difference between artistic process and creative process.chownah

chownah wrote:I'm fine, thank you......do you feel better?.....got any ideas about this thread you would like to share?chownah

Oh I'm feeling ok. Have been meditating for once instead of that extra hour of sleep I thought I needed. Maybe I'll start to be less grumpy and sarcastic.

Anyway I see where you're coming from in terms of worldly acheivements but if you've ever really experienced the process of truly cultivating an art form you might have a different perspective. If it weren't for the fact that I wanted to play guitar like Jimi Hendrix when I was 11 years old I probably never would have ended up being a Buddhist. (Though these days I play jazz and classical guitar unless somebody wants me to bang out some old school rock riff). There is some link between artistry and "spirituality" (I hate that word though) though, as I have mentioned, it's not something that really comes up in Theravada.

Creativity aside, there's one thing the whole endeavor of mastering an instrument taught me it was how to do this thing called "practice" and what it means, and what it involves, and how you have to be patient and persistent to cultivate something over time. I would have never had the patience for sitting in meditation if I didn't know what it meant to cultivate something. So I think that schools that teach some art form as part of their "spiritual" (blech again) practice are definately onto something. Though certainly it can become about competitiveness, achievement, gain, fame, etc. But then again so can Dhamma practice.

While I never put my art form down completely (I plan to return to teaching classical guitar soon) I did change my reason for doing it. When I was a kid I wanted to disappear into my art form as an escape, and then I wanted to be impressive and appreciated and loved by my peers. That has worn off and now I have a completely different attitude to it, and I actually do consider it part of my practice.

I'm wondering what is the difference between artistic process and creative process.chownah

I'd say the artistic process has to do with taking the creative process into a particular realm or art form that one has crafted. There are some very creative people out there with no particular skill. My dad said the coolest thing once - "There is no art without craftsmanship." He once saw a peice of art that was made of metal and very badly welded. He spotted this as a professional welder who had no "creative" ability. He probably could have reproduced the thing better than the original "artist" though he probably wouldn't have been able to invent the thing from scratch. Nonetheless he was not impressed with the piece at all.

In reading over this rather difficult thread, I think I understand your questions and concerns, but rather than trying puzzle this all out, it might be better to simply do the practice and do your art and let things play out. These things will find a balance without forcing the issue.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

In reading over this rather difficult thread, I think I understand your questions and concerns, but rather than trying puzzle this all out, it might be better to simply do the practice and do your art and let things play out. These things will find a balance without forcing the issue.

Yes, yes. And this requires creativity, it is a itself a kind of artistry.

-----------------------------------

On a slightly different note. I've had similar conversations both online and offline. In such conversations, someone would usually express some discomfort with the idea of 'art'. I can see why this is so because 'art' in modern culture is often associated with 'distinction' and 'discrimination'. To a certain extent, art in modern culture is seen as a system of 'value' and 'judgement'. It is also often associated with various social groups who use the idea of 'art' to maintain cultural hierarchy. And to a certain extent, 'art' has become an industry (even though many art enthusiasts see themselves as above the crass processes of the market).

Because of these associations, it is understandable why some people would find the idea of 'art' off-putting. From this perspective, it is easily associated with self-indulgence or one-upmanship. Hence, when the topic of 'art' comes up, it is understandable why people say things like, 'Get over it!' or 'Get over yourself!'

IMO, it is important to be critical about such conceptualisations of art. But I don't think the OP is talking about art in this sense.

I agree "art" is a very ambiguous term and have myself observed the things you point out - I'm more concerned with the process/art of how an "artist" goes from having a "vision", deciding that their "vision" is worthy of realisation and then going on to realise that "vision".

As an example, The Buddha had a vision to end suffering which he had learned/witnessed was caused by ignorance.

He used words and their associated meanings to put together speeches/discourses and performed them in the hope they would be interpreted/received/understood/agreed with by the ignorant and thus contribute to the realisation of his vision i.e. the cessation of their suffering.

The "art" in this IMO is knowing and choosing the right words then arranging them in the right way i.e. fabricating the word-arrangements that are going to contribute to the realization of his vision.

This fabrication of word-arrangements got the wheel of dhamma spinning and gave rise to the sasana so it was pretty good "artistry" IMO.

tiltbillings,

Thanks for your post - this is just stuff I like to ponder - it doesn't keep me awake at night or anything. I will continue to do my art and practice as you advise.

chownah,

I'd agree with what meindzai said about the difference between the artistic process and the creative process but i'll add that IMO a lot of it boils down to the mind controlling the body/volition that is doing the creating. It's like what meindzai said about practicing - cultivating the discipline to practice helps build the mind in it's ability to control the body/volition at a certain skill level - he picks up a guitar and it's more "artistic" then when the regular joe who doesn't practice picks up the guitar and tries to get "creative" - I find meindzai more "artistic" then the regular joe cause his mind/heart contains discipline.

MayaRefugee wrote:I'd agree with what meindzai said about the difference between the artistic process and the creative process but i'll add that IMO a lot of it boils down to the mind controlling the body/volition that is doing the creating. It's like what meindzai said about practicing - cultivating the discipline to practice helps build the mind in it's ability to control the body/volition at a certain skill level - he picks up a guitar and it's more "artistic" then when the regular joe who doesn't practice picks up the guitar and tries to get "creative" - I find meindzai more "artistic" then the regular joe cause his mind/heart contains discipline.

That's it for now, Peace everyone.

But "Regular Joe" is my stage name! j/k

I know a lot of people whose entry into meditation practice was through the arts in one way or another. It doesn't necessarily mean that Buddhism is about art or that we must accept the Buddha as an artist at some kind, but there seems to be, at least anecdotally, some sort of connection.

MayaRefugee wrote:I agree meindzai, when you look at the qualities involved in displaying "artistry" a lot overlap with the qualities of a good meditator i.e. discernment, concentration, inginuity, etc.

Would you agree the meditators "artwork" would be his/her mind and the decision to share/portray an aspect of their mind would then make them an "artist"?

Peace.

I'm not sure I'm qualified to explain in depth what the connection between art and meditation really is. To me there just seems to be a connection, and there is something about being unhindered by conventional thinking that frees up the creative process. I think the Buddha was an unconventional thinker.

The "skill" and "practice" part is something I feel might be more applicable to Theravada. It doesn't have to be "art". It can even be a skill like sharpening knives. (Something Thanissaro Bhikkhu has mentioned). It seems that people who have developed some kind of skill or art form have a better time with meditation.

MayaRefugee wrote:Would you agree the meditators "artwork" would be his/her mind and the decision to share/portray an aspect of their mind would then make them an "artist"?

Hi, MayaRefugee,I have thought - and maybe said - previously that your choice of words seems to be contributing vagueness and confusion, not clarity, to the discussion and (I suspect) your own thinking. Here is another example - you are stretching the words 'artwork' and 'artist' to cover ideas they were never intended to cover, and that makes them less meaningful, not more. I think that if you spent a bit of time clarifying your language (e.g. the differences between art and craft, skill and technique, artist and artwork, career and vocation and hobby), you would simultaneously clarify your thinking and maybe resolve a lot of your own questions. Words aren't thoughts, but the right words do help us think.

I apologise if I have offended you by not meeting the standards of "word-smithery" you expect in a discussion.

Untill recently I never spoke what I thought and I just parroted what I thought I was supposed to say, behind this parroting I was developing my own understanding/intuition of things, I'm now making an effort to bring this understanding to the forefront/learn to speak what I really think/have intuited and this forum has become an avenue for me to do this - please recognise this is a learning tool for me to see what's going on in my and other peoples minds in relation to certain objects/concepts of meditation.

You say I'm not using words the way they were intended, intended by who and what authority do they have?

Words are labels and transcending labels or the labeling part of the mind, I have read, is integral on the path to enlightenment.

You say you're a music teacher, if one of your students learnt to play the piano using their intuition and developed a degree of competency they were happy with and, using their own language, called A-Sharp "this key here" would you tell them they are making things less meaningful by not calling A-Sharp A-Sharp like you think they are supposed to do?

Have you read about the illiterate arahants or idiot-savants or other enigmas - there are other ways to arrive at competency then just through the absorbtion and adherence to convention.

Adherence to conventions, in this case the conventions of a "language", as meindzai alluded to, is a burden - the dhamma also says stuff about rites, rituals, traditions, ceromonies, etc and how they're not worth following - this all ties in with the question I raised about ones attitude when engaging in the artistic process, I find an attitude that emphasizes convention to be inhibiting - each to their own I guess.

meindzai,

I used to work in a bar when I was at Uni, not tooting my own horn but I got pretty good at the tasks involved and eventually it took very little conscious thought to carry them out.

Having my body occupied with activities that had become habit/took very little conscious thought allowed me to contemplate other things and work on attainting peace of mind.

Giving the body something simple to do or letting it indulge in a habit it likes I've found can help bring about peace of mind.

Not that I know much about it I've read Zen monks do walking meditation - walking is pretty simple and requires little thought.

MayaRefugee wrote:Kim, I apologise if I have offended you by not meeting the standards of "word-smithery" you expect in a discussion.

No need to apologise - I'm not offended.

MayaRefugee wrote:Untill recently I never spoke what I thought and I just parroted what I thought I was supposed to say, behind this parroting I was developing my own understanding/intuition of things, I'm now making an effort to bring this understanding to the forefront/learn to speak what I really think/have intuited and this forum has become an avenue for me to do this - please recognise this is a learning tool for me to see what's going on in my and other peoples minds in relation to certain objects/concepts of meditation.

Okay - I can understand that. My previous post was actually aimed at helping you do it better.

MayaRefugee wrote:You say I'm not using words the way they were intended, intended by who and what authority do they have?

It's not really 'intended', more 'agreed' or 'accepted' - my poor usage - sorry.While you're talking to yourself, thinking things through, you can use any words you like - though I still think that using words carefully does help you think better. When you are trying to communicate with others (e.g. here), your communication fails if you don't use their language. In particular, if your private meaning of 'art' and 'artist' doesn't match your readers' meaning of 'art' and 'artist', you won't communicate what you want to communicate. Is that good? Is it useful? Is it even good manners? Of course not.

MayaRefugee wrote:Words are labels and transcending labels or the labeling part of the mind, I have read, is integral on the path to enlightenment.

That also is true. But at the moment, we're communicating, not transcending.

MayaRefugee wrote:You say you're a music teacher, if one of your students learnt to play the piano using their intuition and developed a degree of competency they were happy with and, using their own language, called A-Sharp "this key here" would you tell them they are making things less meaningful by not calling A-Sharp A-Sharp like you think they are supposed to do?

No, but I would tell them it's useful to use the accepted names for the notes so that they can communicate with other musicians.

MayaRefugee wrote:Have you read about the illiterate arahants or idiot-savants or other enigmas - there are other ways to arrive at competency then just through the absorbtion and adherence to convention.

True, but be careful that you don't confuse 'convention' and 'competence' and then reject the technical training which allows you to express yourself freely.

MayaRefugee wrote:Adherence to conventions, in this case the conventions of a "language", as meindzai alluded to, is a burden - the dhamma also says stuff about rites, rituals, traditions, ceromonies, etc and how they're not worth following - this all ties in with the question I raised about ones attitude when engaging in the artistic process, I find an attitude that emphasizes convention to be inhibiting - each to their own I guess.

Chacun a son gout, as you say. But if you want to talk about it - as you seemed to (you started the thread, didn't you?) - we do need a shared language.

If ending suffering and ignorance was your imperative putting the dhamma in or translating the dhamma into "your own words" so to speak while maintaining the integrity of how the messages in the dhamma were intended to be comprehended would be the way to go I'm reckoning - sort of like the same messages but different modes of communication - What do you think?

I agree in principle, though personally, I have not yet been able to find a way not to dilute the dhamma when putting it in "my own words", or even just manage to maintain the same quality of expression as it is in the canon. Either way, I think the fact that we're trying to figure out this issue is already a lot better than being involved in arts just for selfish reasons (i.e. sensual pleasures, conceit, etc).

MayaRefugee wrote:In saying this the intended recipient of the message/teaching your communicating would have to be watching for the message and not be simply gratifying/treating their senses with/to appealing colours/vibrations/textures/etc. - the trickiness of getting them to look for a message among the colors/vibrations/textures/etc is probably why The Buddha said what you mentioned about the decline of sasana if people payed more attention to artists then the dhamma.

I guess so. I mean, if a work of art is made the vessel for a dhamma message, then most people would first react to it through sensual pleasure, because that's the ingrained habit of reacting to sensual objects for most of us, be they objects of sound, sight, etc. Would anyone then also get the dhamma message once the sensual pleasure is aroused? Hard to say, but so far my conclusion is that one is directly opposed to the other, and so the approach seems fundamentally counter-productive and could be justified only in extreme situations (like when it is the only way to sneak in some dhamma).

pt1 wrote: I mean, if a work of art is made the vessel for a dhamma message, then most people would first react to it through sensual pleasure, because that's the ingrained habit of reacting to sensual objects for most of us, be they objects of sound, sight, etc. Would anyone then also get the dhamma message once the sensual pleasure is aroused? Hard to say, but so far my conclusion is that one is directly opposed to the other, and so the approach seems fundamentally counter-productive and could be justified only in extreme situations (like when it is the only way to sneak in some dhamma).

Hi Kim, not sure what you're trying to say. I mean, if the mind turns to examining the picture behind the text, I'll most probably either like the picture or dislike it, and both of these would be unwholesome cittas, what would exclude the possibility of wisdom arising at these moments of liking/disliking (at least), so it would be impossible to wisely consider the dhamma verse in these moments (at least). On that basis, I'd say the verse would have a better chance of being wisely considered without the picture behind it. Though of course, yours is a pretty innocent case, e.g. if the verse was also sung in a melody, like Christian psalms for example, there'd be a lot more room for unwholesome cittas arising on account of dis/liking the singing, music, etc.